If you wish to load balance mail through several servers, then just use a
load balancing scheme like through red hats new product, though I forget its
name, or use a cisco loaddirector or an F5 BigIP or any number of farm
solutions.
Each server can have a copy of the user table and route to the appropriate
mail servers as needed.
Bottleneck Eliminated.
(two server addresses on the same MX priority is not as configurable or
reliable as the load balancing hardware)
"Nothing eliminates stress like having auto-redundant systems" - me as a
network administrator
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheer El-Showk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:14 PM
> To: Russell Nelson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: domain splitting
>
>
>
> Thanks, but my real concern is that all the mail NOT go
> through a SINGLE
> mail server (in terms of bandwithd). If I do what you suggested
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] still has to go through location A (the full message,
> including attachements has to be received at that location)
> which means
> that it becomes a bandwidth bottle-kneck (and since there will be many
> locations all with very little bandwidth supporting a large
> organization
> this can be a problem). At least that's how I understand it -- if you
> know some way that location A could tell the outside server
> just to route
> directly to location B, that's what I'm really looking for
> (sort of a SMTP
> user-based server resolution). Please correct me if I
> misunderstood what
> you said or if it doens't require full mail routing through
> location A.
>
> By the way, an entirely qmail solution shouldn't be a problem
> since the my
> clients seem to like the idea of linux and I am a big fan of qmail ;->
>
> Thanks anyway,
> Sheer
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> > Sheer El-Showk writes:
> > > I would like to host mail for a single domain (ie all
> users should be
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) on several (geographically distributed)
> machines,
> > > with users in each area receiving their mail at the
> local mail sever. The
> > > hard part is, as bandwidth is a limiting issue, I don't
> want all the mail
> > > to be forwarded through a single host (eg if user1 at
> location A is
> > > sending a 5 MB attachement to user2 at location B, I
> don't want that to
> > > have to bounce off some central mail sever at location
> C). This means
> > > that all the mail servers serve the same domain name but
> have to be
> > > distinguishable (via DNS or sonmething sendmail does) by
> users served.
> >
> > Qmail lets you implement this using virtualdomains. You can
> > virtualize a domain on a per-use basis. So tell the qmail
> running at
> > location A that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is actually [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Unfortunately, both sites A and B have to be running qmail
> and must be
> > configured with the user table. There's no global way to
> do what you
> > want. I suggest that you colocate the central mail server somewhere
> > where there's plenty of bandwidth, and configure it with
> the user table.
> >
> > --
> > -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com |
> If you think
> > Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | health
> care is expensive now
> > 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | now, wait
> until you see
> > Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | what it
> costs when it's free.
> >
>
